Yikes. You've painted a vivid picture of the mindset that most people are in when they get addicted to drugs. Even if what you're using isn't inherently addictive thats a vulnerable place to be in. Hope you can find some healthy sources of help.
Jesse
joined 2 years ago
What? That's their sell-out pop song. The rest of their stuff is way better.
It already happened once in my life with the Winnipeg Jets, and granted I was 8 years old, but no I didn't keep cheering for the Phoenix Coyotes, though I know people who did. It would definitely be a mix, and I think most people would pick a different team, but I'm not sure what the proportion would be. Even in hockey, a team moving is pretty rare.
Found the anaerobic bacteria trolling as a human. Get outta here!
I get eaten by the worms... and weird fishes...
As you say in your first sentence, language is by consensus. And, the long-standing consensus among ichthyologists is to use exactly this terminology, and you'll find it consistently across the scientific literature for generations now.
I appreciate you, and thank you.
We're running on theory alone here, but if thats true, then its too inert to be reabsorbed by your kidneys and therefore would pass into your urine and leave your body that way. Also how is it causing cancer if it's inert?
Well jokes on them, I used it to improve my resilience and adaptability anyway!
Jesus Christ this thread. The technicalities aren't the point. You are allowed to find happiness where you can in an imperfect world that contains suffering. It doesn't mean you'll be complacent to injustice. Fighting against injustice can be done without thinking the world is hopeless dogshit. There's satisfaction that can be justifiably had, through means other than smug superiority at knowing all the depressing truths of the world, or the sympathy of others for your problems. We feed ourselves so much rage and sadness via the internet, can we not have a palate-cleanser like this without chewing it up and spitting it out, and then going back to gorging on more?
Usually when numbers are presented that way it's because there are many studies they looked at. So I presume there was one study showing a rate of 40%, another showing 70% and the rest of the studies fell somewhere in between those two extremes, with differences likely due to types of games, types of systems, and any number of other factors, including chance. They could have just averaged all the studies and quoted a number like 55% for example, but I think the other way actually paints a better picture of the data. It's still possible they're full of shit, but just presenting the numbers like that doesn't mean they're pulling it out of their ass.
No one surprised, even besides the punishment for the trade fiasco. He's seemed to put a team together with a lot of talent, but I think a new GM and new head coach is likely what they need to take the next step(s).